A note of introduction from Teddy:
By the standard definition of the word, the United Methodist Church is in turmoil––a state of high confusion and uncertainty. Short of a miraculous move of God, we will not achieve peace quickly or easily. In times like this, I’m especially thankful for those who risk to lead. I’m thankful for those who show a deep love and respect for our Church and its institution and an equally deep love and respect for people, regardless of agreement on issues. I believe peace––slow and hard, though it may be––will require these kinds of leaders.
Because of that, I want to share with you a guest post from Dr. Bill Arnold. I think you’ll hear in this post all of those things I listed above. If his leadership reflects the tone and leadership of the newly forming Wesleyan Covenant Association, I have high hopes for what may happen through that alliance.
Why the Wesleyan Covenant Association?
by Bill T. Arnold
The Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA) is a new alliance of congregations, pastors, and laypeople, coming together to enhance and support vibrant, scriptural Christianity within United Methodism. (For more, see here.)
The question for many is why? Why form the WCA? And why now?
I have been involved with the WCA since its beginning, and will participate in the launch event in Chicago, October 7. My reasons are complicated, and reach back to my ordination as an elder in the Church, and beyond.
When I was ordained in the UMC, I answered certain familiar questions that many have answered before me. These are part of what we call the “Historic Examination for Admission into Full Connection” as an elder in the church (Book of Discipline, paragraph 336). These questions were formulated by John Wesley and have been asked of every Methodist preacher from the beginning with little change. They are, of course, “historic” and are therefore not obligatory as official polity. Few would insist, for example, that every Methodist minister must recommend fasting and abstinence “both by precept and example” (question #16). And yet, while not official polity, they are treasures left to us by Father John himself, and they contain wonderful insight into what we ought to be and do as Methodist clergy (such as diligently instructing “the children in every place,” #14). Along these lines, I find especially instructive the following three, which seem as relevant now as in Wesley’s day (questions ##11-13).
Have you studied our form of Church discipline and polity?
Do you approve our Church government and polity?
Will you support and maintain them?
In the context of Methodism’s early history, one of the reasons these questions were asked was to address the debate between episcopal forms of government versus congregational forms. As a United Methodist, I continue to believe the episcopal form of church governance is preferable. In this, I agree with John Wesley in his sermon “Catholic Spirit” in which he embraced an episcopal form of government as scriptural and apostolic. I have been privileged to serve as a member of the Southeastern Jurisdiction’s Committee on Episcopacy for four years. I have seen firsthand the task of our bishops, and I think I have a good understanding of the challenging role bishops have in the Church. I stand in awe and appreciation of our SEJ bishops and I am grateful for the leadership they provide.
But of course, these “historic” questions also relate to the concept of accountability. One of the many beauties of early Methodism was the accountability built into being a Methodist Christian. Even now, we have accountability built into the system all along the way (theoretically), from General Conference (and the decisions it makes contained in the Book of Discipline), through the annual and charge conferences, into the life of every local church. I love our connectedness, and the strength in ministry it provides. And that’s part of why I answered “yes” to the historic questions.
Studied United Methodist discipline and polity? Check.
Approve our government and polity? Check.
Support and maintain them? Check.
So how does all this relate to the WCA? Some pastors, local churches, and conferences in the UMC, have decided, with deliberate forethought, that they can no longer approve our church’s government and polity.
General Conference 2016 did not alter our views on human sexuality. And yet, since the conclusion of General Conference in Portland this May, a number of boards of ordained ministry in some annual conferences have said they will no longer uphold the ordination standards prescribed in the Book of Discipline. Others have declared they stand in “non-compliance” with the General Conference on the question of same-sex weddings and ordination of practicing LGBT+ candidates for ministry. On July 15, the Western Jurisdiction elected a married lesbian as bishop, who will assume an episcopal role in the Mountain Sky Area September 1 (being the Rocky Mountain and Yellowstone Annual Conferences).
By contrast, the General Conference did, in fact, change our Church’s relationship with the abortion-rights advocacy group “Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice,” by requiring our boards and agencies to withdraw from it. Almost immediately, several annual conferences, in deliberate defiance of the intent and will of the General Conference, voted to join the RCRC.
The accountability of our polity is broken. Our Book of Discipline is no longer accepted as an agreed upon form of administration, holding our Church together as one.
On the one hand, part of me understands and even respects the decision by some United Methodists to declare their open rebellion against the General Conference. They have fought these fights for many decades. They feel the US culture and popular opinion has changed in their favor, and they believe they are standing in a prophetic tradition that requires these actions. They have had enough. They think the UMC is wrong, and needs to be forced into changing its positions.
I hope those United Methodists will allow me to disagree civilly. I think the changes in US culture and popular opinion are alarming and reflect our broken society as much as anything. Besides, I think such cultural changes are irrelevant to the Church’s position on human sexuality. Fifty years ago during the sexual revolution, the Church failed to articulate and defend a consistent foundation for sexual ethics. As a result, the UMC’s current standards for ordination and our affirmation of Christian marriage (joining one man and one woman in union for life) appear to many to be hopelessly out of step with the times. But I believe these are biblical and theological mandates, and in the best parts of Christian history, the Church has stood for these principles. The burden of proof for changing those standards must rest squarely on the foundation of clear and compelling biblical exegesis. So far, I have been unconvinced such a case can be made. I also believe the Church is being called to a more proactive, loving, and robust ministry to persons experiencing same-sex attraction. With regard to the UMC specifically, I grieve over the loss of accountability in our Church’s governance and polity, without which we cannot move forward as a unified branch of the Wesleyan movement.
And so, at this moment in our Church’s history, many have publicly announced their decision to break from the governance and polity of The United Methodist Church. I have chosen this venue, the Wesleyan Covenant Association, as a place to say, just as publicly, that I support and maintain that governance and polity. Through the WCA, I commit myself to uphold and maintain the governance and polity of The United Methodist Church.
The WCA is nothing more for me than a way to embrace Methodism. I love our Church. I love its rituals, its history and heritage, and I love its Wesleyan theology. In short, I love being United Methodist. Other than the influence of my godly parents, God worked through The United Methodist Church more than anything else to redeem my life, nurture my faith, teach me the Scriptures, confirm my calling, and ordain me to ministry.
The WCA is a way of saying all this publicly – of recommitting myself to my ordination vows. I want to be a good Methodist. At this point in time, that means participating in the work of the Wesleyan Covenant Association.
If you agree and are able to join me, I hope you will make your way to Chicago October 7, for this special launch event. You can read our faith statement here and register here.
My thanks again to Bill for his strong leadership and allowing me to share this article here.
What can you do now?
8 thoughts on “Why the Wesleyan Covenant Association? a guest post by Bill T. Arnold”
Perhaps I am in error in my early and vocal support for WCA. We msy not be a voice you desire to have there. I am spending a thousand dollars I do not have to travel a thousand miles beyond my parish for, what is described as, “nothing more for me than a way to embrace Methodism.”
I will be there with laity, but we are not coming to fund another newsletter, another website, nor another lobbying group so we may have “a greater voice.”
We have a voice. Our arguments prevail at every GC and JC session, yet our administrative bodies (as much at the general church level as with the non-compliant conferences ) act in continuous and blatant disregard for covenant. Our general church agencies along with many conferences are in breach of covenant, breach of trust, and breach of contract. I am not suggesting that we withdraw from our church. After all we are the majority. However, if this body is unwilling to endorse any concerted action or timeline for action – even in embryonic form – to make it clear that this behavior is over, then we we return from Chicago it is not likely that it will be with a future for the WCA or the UMC.
Keith, the usefulness of the WCA is subtler and ultimately more profound than you appreciate. Months from now, it will have been most helpful to understand precisely who left the church, what actions caused them to leave, and who remains. Further, it will be crucial for it to be plain that those who remain are, in fact, the United Methodist Church. I believe these understandings will be the legacy of the WCA and I’m thankful for their vision.
We are coming to listen more than to speak, but this is going to be a hard sale. “Months from now,” at least indicates someone is thinking of a time line.
I am sincerely grateful for your choice of words for the lack of appreciation for the subtlety by many of us. You are accurate in that it is not that I do not understand, but that I do not “hold as valuable ” a process that has already failed. We issue an erudite statement–others act and change the reality–we issue another erudite statement.
What you assert needs to be done I assert has already been done. Our general church agencies don’t give a hoot about any of that. They have established their own polity apart from the GC and JC, and they could not care less about fine points articulated by a para-church group.
I do not know if you appreciate that sometimes the right tool for the job is a sledgehammer.
As I said, we will come to listen. Maybe someone will state in plain language without all the subtleties and nuance what the plan is. Months, maybe…years, no way.
I’ve heard a lot of people say that the Wesleyan Covenantal Association is “not about the gays” but about a longing for church revival. According to this post, it’s mostly about the gays. That’s disappointing to hear. I want church revival. And I don’t think it will happen until we seek true holiness rather than merely using the word as a code-word in our arguments about the gays.
Morgan- the elephant in the room is gay! the baggage it brings is more than a trunk; it is for nothing less than the destruction of the UMC. Chuch revival ?? Survival is a more theologically relevant concern!
What’s the difference between this and the confessing movement? Is this solely centered around human sexuality?
I don’t want to presume to speak for Bill or the leaders of the WCA too much, but the way I understand this post, this is not solely centered around human sexuality. I read the primary point here to be about supporting and maintaining the governance and polity of the UMC. Human sexuality has certainly been a presenting issue on this, but it isn’t the focus as I read this. Bill also mentions the General Conference’s vote on RCRC and certain conferences’ defiance of the will and intent of our GC on that issue.
Though I’d imagine many WCA members would also be part of the confessing movement, and vice versa, I don’t read their primary issues as being the same. The statement here that seems to be at the heart of WCA’s concerns: “The accountability of our polity is broken.”